| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Berg, Lena, et al.
(author)
-
Avbrott på akutmottagning
- 2011
-
In: 6:e nationella konferensen om patientsäkerhet. - Stockholm.
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Berg, Lena M, et al.
(author)
-
An observational study of activities and multitasking performed by clinicians in two Swedish emergency departments
- 2012
-
In: European journal of emergency medicine. - London : Chapman & Hall. - 0969-9546 .- 1473-5695. ; 19:4, s. 246-251
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: To explore the type and frequency of activities and multitasking performed by emergency department clinicians.Methods: Eighteen clinicians (licensed practical nurses, registered nurses and medical doctors), six from each occupational group, at two Swedish emergency departments were followed in their clinical work for 2 h each to observe all their activities and multitasking practices. Data were analysed using qualitative and quantitative content analysis.Results: Fifteen categories of activities could be identified based on 1882 observed activities during the 36 h of observation. The most common activity was information exchange, which was most often performed face-to-face. This activity represented 42.1% of the total number of observed activities. Information exchange was also the most common activity to be multitasked. Registered nurses performed most activities and their activities were multitasked more than the other clinicians. The nurses’ and doctors’ offices were the most common locations for multitasking in the emergency department.Conclusion: This study provides new knowledge regarding the activities conducted by clinicians in the emergency department. The most frequent activity was information exchange, which was the activity most often performed by the clinicians when multitasking occurred. Differences between clinicians were found for activities performed and multitasked, with registered nurses showing the highest frequencies for both.
|
|
| 7. |
- Berg, Lena M, et al.
(author)
-
Interruptions in emergency department work : an observational and interview study
- 2013
-
In: BMJ Quality and Safety. - : BMJ. - 2044-5415 .- 2044-5423. ; 22:8, s. 656-663
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectiv.e Frequent interruptions are assumed to have a negative effect on healthcare clinicians’ working memory that could result in risk for errors and hence threatening patient safety. The aim of this study was to explore interruptions occurring during common activities of clinicians working in emergency departments.Method. Totally 18 clinicians, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses and medical doctors, at two Swedish emergency departments were observed during clinical work for 2 h each. A semistructured interview was conducted directly after the observation to explore their perceptions of interruptions. Data were analysed using non-parametric statistics, and by quantitative and qualitative content analysis.Results. The interruption rate was 5.1 interruptions per hour. Most often the clinicians were exposed to interruptions during activities involving information exchange. Calculated as percentages of categorised performed activities, preparation of medication was the most interrupted activity (28.6%). Face-to-face interaction with a colleague was the most common way to be interrupted (51%). Most common places for interruptions to occur were the nurses’ and doctors’ stations (68%). Medical doctors were the profession interrupted most often and were more often recipients of interruptions induced by others than causing self-interruptions. Most (87%) of the interrupted activities were resumed. Clinicians often did not regard interruptions negatively. Negative perceptions were more likely when the interruptions were considered unnecessary or when they disturbed the work processes.Conclusions. Clinicians were exposed to interruptions most often during information exchange. Relative to its occurrence, preparation of medication was the most common activity to be interrupted, which might increase risk for errors. Interruptions seemed to be perceived as something negative when related to disturbed work processes.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Farrokhnia, Nasim, et al.
(author)
-
Emergency Department Triage Scales and Their Components : A Systematic Review of the Scientific Evidence
- 2011
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1757-7241. ; 19, s. 42-
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Emergency department (ED) triage is used to identify patients' level of urgency and treat them based on their triage level. The global advancement of triage scales in the past two decades has generated considerable research on the validity and reliability of these scales. This systematic review aims to investigate the scientific evidence for published ED triage scales. The following questions are addressed: 1. Does assessment of individual vital signs or chief complaints affect mortality during the hospital stay or within 30 days after arrival at the ED? 2. What is the level of agreement between clinicians' triage decisions compared to each other or to a gold standard for each scale (reliability)? 3. How valid is each triage scale in predicting hospitalization and hospital mortality? A systematic search of the international literature published from 1966 through March 31, 2009 explored the British Nursing Index, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed. Inclusion was limited to controlled studies of adult patients (>= 15 years) visiting EDs for somatic reasons. Outcome variables were death in ED or hospital and need for hospitalization (validity). Methodological quality and clinical relevance of each study were rated as high, medium, or low. The results from the studies that met the inclusion criteria and quality standards were synthesized applying the internationally developed GRADE system. Each conclusion was then assessed as having strong, moderately strong, limited, or insufficient scientific evidence. If studies were not available, this was also noted. We found ED triage scales to be supported, at best, by limited and often insufficient evidence. The ability of the individual vital signs included in the different scales to predict outcome is seldom, if at all, studied in the ED setting. The scientific evidence to assess interrater agreement (reliability) was limited for one triage scale and insufficient or lacking for all other scales. Two of the scales yielded limited scientific evidence, and one scale yielded insufficient evidence, on which to assess the risk of early death or hospitalization in patients assigned to the two lowest triage levels on a 5-level scale (validity).
|
|
